Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Power Plants Authority


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Editors were split between deletion (largely based on COI concerns and a lack of independent sources), merge (with largely the same rationale as the delete !voters) and keeping (on the basis that a government agency is likely to be notable). signed,Rosguill talk 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear Power Plants Authority

 * – ( View AfD View log )

1. Looks like an advertisement, not encyclopedic article. 2. The notability is not shown, no independent RS. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I have improved the article In addition to some sources,the article is about a governmental body. I belong to this body and I have been assigned to write an article about it on Wikipedia. thanks--Fatma el shafie (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Article was created by editor who has a COI with the authority. Most likely intended as an advertisement. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. jp×g 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thank you for adding some sources to the article.
 * First of all if you are associated with The Nuclear Power Plants Authority you have a conflict of interest with the subject. It is advised that you do not edit the article directly, and instead request edits through the talk page. Please have a read of WP:COI. Furthermore if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia or are editing as part of your job you will need to make a paid editor disclosure, please read WP:PAID. If you have any questions or issues with this you can ask for help at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard.
 * Secondly, it appears that the text of the article has been copied from the Nuclear Power Plants Authority website, this could present problems with Copyright, Unless the text is available under a licence that is compatible with Wikipedia. Even if it is available under a compatible licence it is generally not a good idea to copy text directly into Wikipedia as it is not written in the correct form to be a page on the encyclopaedia.
 * Finally in order for the Nuclear Power Plants Authority to qualify for an article the sourcing would have to show that the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. These require that the organisation has had "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Looking at the references you have added:
 * Does not mention the NPPA, is an article about a power plant
 * Is a list of projects, I can't see anything in there that is relevant to the NPPA, could you link the specific project?
 * Does not mention the NPPA, is an article about a power plant
 * Is primarily about a power plant, with the NPPA given a trivial mention as the operator
 * You cannot reference Wikipedia within Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR
 * Is about a power plant, the source does not mention the NPPA
 * Is a company listing, which verifies the existence of the NPPA but does not show notability
 * Is a tag on a news website which turns up 3 articles, most of which are routine coverage or trivial mentions, Is there a specific article you had in mind? While there is some coverage there, I'm not seeing enough for a standalone article.
 * As I said in my first comment there absolutely should be a section on the NPPA in the article Nuclear program of Egypt, but I'm not currently seeing enough stand alone notability for a separate article, and the current content of the article is both in the wrong format and may have copyright issues.
 * I hope this helps 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NPPA mean Nuclear Power Plants Authority ,It is an economic governmental body based in Egypt And the site of its establishment in El-Dabaa--Fatma el shafie (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect with a very selective merge to Nuclear program of Egypt, with which I will help. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some new resources I will include here to see if they work or not before putting them in the main article
 * My opinion for a merge/redirect has not changed. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Very selectively Merge with Nuclear program of Egypt: but DO NOT leave a redirect. This article creates an unnecessary WP:CFORK split and it does not meet the criteria for a summary spin off. The name is far to generic for a redirect to a specific article.   // Timothy ::  talk  18:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not leave a redirect? By simply clicking on the words "books" and "scholar" at the top of this discussion I can see loads of references to the article subject, but none to any other authority with this name. How, then, is this name in any way at all generic, let alone far too generic? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I add some references   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatma el shafie (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article should be deleted, and for the creator: you might want to add NPPA's official website for citation and other usage. (https://nppa.gov.eg/en/about-us/) This is a governmental autority article that could later on be used as a reference in articles like Nuclear power in Egypt or El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant for example. comment added by Ziad Rashad — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a few more sources, but very large blocs of text (as of this timestamp) remain unsourced. Either it needs to be stubified or merged. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It needs a lot of work, but government agencies are generally notable. Not a good idea to delete or merge it. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
 * Comment Content is irrelevant at AfD. A redirect to the Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy (Egypt) might be appropriate (but AfD is not necessary for that). However, the NPPA seems to be notable in its own right, simple searching turns up multiple items, am leaning towards keep...--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed as per, deletion is not necessary. Government agencies are usually notable. The article can be kept by cleaning up as per sourcing for now. Editors from WP:EGYPT and WP:Energy may be requested to improve the article. USaamo (t@lk) 11:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per and .VR talk 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.